Since the program has a $5 million start-up cost, what service is the city going to stop providing to cover the $5 million (plus the annual cost of continuing the program)? Either they will have to raise taxes or cut some (less important) service. Which is it?

To pay for this, either COP raises water rates, or they raise sewer rates and take money from BES. And, since Randy even bullies his own City employees, and ignores their timeline to ram this through in 18 months, the rates will raise quickly. Wonder if there will be some passive-agressive rollback from Water Bureau employees after Randy is thankfully gone.

If I recall correctly, Portlanders way back in the 60s or 70s voted against having fluoride added to their Bull Run water.

Whether you are for fluoride in Portland water supply or not, who can be for the heavy handed ways of this current slate of city commissioners. Let the people vote on such an intimate issue!

P.S it ain't going to get any better with the next Mayor and set of commissioners. Maybe Novick might be a bit different. He can surprise with an element of common sense once in awhile (not so with any of the current slate of jokers).

This Hose Guy has become very experienced at hosing other people. He simply doesn’t understand the true meaning of a democracy thinking he along with Sammyboy have been elected to be authoritarian dictators – the Kim Jong Un twins of Portland. He is first at the trough to spend money in the public coffers as if it was his personal priority slush fund. Come the end of the year when he finally leaves office, he will still be feeding off the public trough through PERS. To quote a personal friend that was a participant in hush-hush 50 business leader meeting that took place a couple of years ago with the State Economist and where The Hose Guy was present rattling his gums: “Randy Leonard is a worthless piece of work”.

Randy isn't doing this for the kids, he has some sort of kickback scheme going.

It isn't necessary to add flouride to the water anymore. Flouride toothpaste gets the protection right to the teeth without having to dose everyone and everything.

If Randy had the brains of a small dog he would understand that. Or maybe he does understand the science but the promise of a payoff is just too appealing.

Sam might not be smart enough to understand that free toothpaste for life to poor kids would cost less than dosing everyone in town with flouride. Maybe if a guy with a cute butt sent him a text on the subject he would pay attention?

The proponents of floridation were organized and the presentations were well-crafted.

The proponents had the first two hours of the hearings for their invited testimony. This is standard when commissioners sponsor a city ordinance.

The opponents generally limited to two minutes (although, some got slightly more time and if commissioners asked questions they were allowed to answer)

It was very apparent the proponents of floridation had worked hard behind the scenes to persuade the commissioners.

The opponents did have some good testimony, but it turned out the Harvard study had some flaws in that the % of floride was much higher in the study villages in China than what would be in the water.

But what also came out is that there hasn't been any studies of floride's long-term effect on IQ in the United States.

There was some interesting and quite powerful anecdotal testimony from a retired foreign language teacher from the Beaverton school district, where she stated her students ability to learn and recall dropped after floride was introduced into the water to where she was able to notice it and so where other language teachers she talked to.

This is how it works: The Money Power sponsors (pays for) studies which seemingly often end up supporting the monied interest's goal or objective.

No money is spent on studies that might contradict what the monied interests want to have happen.

In this case, no long-term studies have been done to see if chronic exposure to low-level amounts of floride has an effect on the body.

Follow-up grants are given to the study's authors to follow-up on the paid for studies -- in this way, the authors are on a gravy-train for a continuous stream of money to contiue supporting the objectives of the financial backers of the studies.

Economic studies often, if not almost always works on this principle.

What happens?

You get a set of "hired-gun" experts ready to support your objective with "objective studies" in their hands to back up their claim of being right.

Another thing, from the hearing experience, I have no doubt the (little people) floride proponents are well-meaning people.

But who is it who wispers in their ear and gets them fired up to where they are willing to do things by force?

I suggest industries where floride is a waste product, would be expensive to get rid of, but who now get paid for their "waste" product.

This is an example of how good-intentioned people get led astray.

I have no doubt they are looking out after children's teeth.

But from my perspective there are other ways to do this without medicating people who don't want to have their body and mind 'bathed' in floride on a chronic basis.

I can only say, I hope the opponents can raise the signatures necessary to force a vote, as Commissioner Randy Leonard challenged them to do.

The opponents also must marshall all available evidence to educate and inform the voters of Portland of the potential dangers involved and the philosophical wrong of forcing everybody to drink floridated water.

The T. V. ads are designed to keep Portlanders from signing the petitions.

There does appear to be evidence that floride helps teeth, but at what cost to the rest of the body?

Especially when considering children's capability to learn and develop their cognitive abilities and skills.

It is the cumulative effect over time where the answers lie in this issue.

And in philosophical and ethical questions of medicating everybody, in the quest to help childrens' teeth.

Helping children have healthy teeth is noble, but is this the best way to do it?

Randy is a bully, an ignoramus, a triple dipper, always irritating, and most probably a crook, but unfortunately none of us will ever be able to prove the last allegation.
110 days seems like an awfully long time today...

$5 million?
Last week, another $57 million was approved for a tank up at Kelly Butte.
If our reservoirs can be saved and the science is on our side there, these costly tanks aren't needed, but our PWB and council had to rush another project through before that EPA LT2 rule review on the matter. Let's not forget that while NY is asking for a timeline reprieve until 2034, our PWB is racing to spend and our elected officials have betrayed us not once, but over and over again!!

Spend, more debt, Leonard is way out of line and he is out of line on the fluoride issue!
The Admiral of the ship is waaay off course.
For one thing, even though many cities of America are on fluoride, most of the world is not! The industry has things sewed up here. Did they use the same approach in those cities as they did here in Portland, lobbying and getting a council to vote and in it goes? Why the rush, is it that that pro fluoride group are fearful that our community knows better and or will find out the negative affects of this in our water? I guess it is much easier to get a few politicians on board. Where are the scientific studies USA has done on this matter? Other cities are disengaging from fluoride use, but like I have mentioned before
P R U D E N C E is not in our council's vocabulary. Neither is D E M O C R A C Y!
Our council ignores the red flags and science on this, why?

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
.......................

In my opinion, we can have no confidence whatsoever on any decisions this council does.
This is becoming more and more apparent.
Those who have done research on this and reading the above link one has to wonder just what is driving this here, but we won’t know because this has all been decided behind closed doors. Leonard likes to use EPA for one thing and then ignore for another.
How smart is this bully who ignores the science and then likes to create chaos and show he is boss?

I too sat through the majority of the hearing. As Jim Evans said; “The proponents of fluoridation were organized and the presentations were well-crafted” - but they were also deceptive. More than once Oregon data on child tooth decay was presented that concluded Oregon was one of the worst states for child tooth decay in the nation. An opponent brought out the fact that with Portland only data there was far less child tooth decay, and that Portland actually faired better than the national average. Therefore with no facts checker on the council, the nuts and bolts basis of the proponents pre-arranged presentation was mostly false.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 156
At this date last year: 225
Total run in 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269